As referenced by Magistrate Judge Payson, there were several court-authorized wiretap orders in the case. Only two are at issue here. One was issued in the Northern District of Georgia for cellular telephone number 404-784-2708. The other was a cellular telephone number 281-772-1940.

Defendant raises several objections. He claims that the warrants were not supported by probable cause, that the officers failed to minimize the intercepted conversations and that law enforcement officials failed to exhaust normal investigative techniques. Magistrate Judge Payson found all of those contentions to be without merit. I agree with her assessment.

Concerning probable cause, after noting defendant's "remarkable lack of specificity" in challenging the warrants, Magistrate Judge Payson discussed in four pages of the Report and Recommendation her basis for concluding that there was ample probable cause. I agree with Magistrate Judge Payson's assessment that the information supplied to the issuing judge clearly established probable cause to believe that narcotics-related conversations would be intercepted. These warrants were but two in a series of warrants that had been issued over the course of this investigation which involved many officers and spanned several different jurisdictions. In sum, I agree with Magistrate Judge Payson that there was ample probable cause to support the warrants. I also agree with Magistrate Judge Payson that there is no evidence to suggest that the law enforcement officers executing the wiretaps did not rely in good faith on the validity of the warrants. Therefore, under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), there is further justification to deny the motions to suppress.

Concerning minimization, Magistrate Judge Payson determined that the defendant failed to demonstrate any privacy interest in either of the two tapped telephone lines and, therefore, he lacked standing to challenge issuance of the warrants. I agree with that assessment for the reasons set forth by Magistrate Judge Payson, and I also concur with her alternate conclusion that on the merits, defendant has failed to show any failure to properly minimize the intercepted communications.

There is also no basis to suppress the conversations because of any failure to utilize other investigative techniques. I agree with Magistrate Judge Payson's assessment that the showing set forth in the affidavits to obtain the warrant was more than sufficient to demonstrate that traditional investigative techniques had been utilized to some extent but were unlikely to achieve all of the goals of the investigation. Magistrate Judge Payson clearly discussed these matters, and I find no basis to change or modify her recitation of the facts and conclusions of law.

CONCLUSION

I accept and adopt the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson (Dkt. #348) in its entirety. Defendant's motion to suppress communications intercepted over two court-authorized wiretaps (Dkt. #314) is in all respects denied.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.